0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Which means we need to care what someone is thinking/planning to do.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2023 12:57:35What do you mean by unreasonable?Judging people for what they are rather than what they do. Or in the case of Northern Ireland, stoning schoolchildren whose mothers attend a different church.
What do you mean by unreasonable?
A civilised society does not censure stupidity or illogical thought, only harmful behavior.
Theocracies, on the other hand, are built on both but punish any deviation from the Official Stupidity.
Some illogical thoughts can produce harmful behaviors.
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/03/2023 16:48:09Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/03/2023 11:09:18Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them. Therefore there is no UMS.The existence of non-universal moral standard doesn't mean the non-existence of a universal moral standard.It means that most moral standards are non-universal, which might be aligned with the universal moral standard in some specific conditions. When the conditions aren't met, then following them would no longer be universally moral thing to do.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/03/2023 11:09:18Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them. Therefore there is no UMS.
Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them.
What should not be violated in any circumstances is the universal moral standard.The worst consequence of violating a local moral standard is some form of consciousness would stop existing. While the worst consequence of violating the universal moral standard is all form of consciousness would stop existing, which would make goals stop existing, and there would be no more good nor bad, and morality becomes meaningless.
Accounting for the aggregate of pleasure and pain in the society is a way to address the problem. It becomes the core of classical utilitarianism.
But pain and pleasure are just the simple form of defense mechanism to preserve consciousness that biological evolutionary process has come up with.
It isn't clear how much pleasure grass gets from sexual reproduction, but it is clearly the dominant genus on this planet.
There is no better or more robust way of converting human waste and sunlight into edible carbohydrates and oxygen.
How likely is it that grass will produce a multi planetary or interstellar civilization? They are instrumental goals to outlive our solar system.
It is doubtful whether anything resembling a human could survive and prosper without grass, but grass doesn't need humans and can survive in a wider range of environments.
"Grass" includes rice and wheat. The rest of the plant can feed insects or herbivorous mammals, which humans can then eat. An animal that can synthesise its own vitamins would not be a human.